Catholic Medical Quarterly

The Journal of the Catholic Medical Association (UK)

Building knowledge. Building faith. Protecting the vulnerable.

• Home
• CMA (UK) Website
• Contact us
• About Us

Catholic Medical Quarterly Vol 76 (3) August 2026

Editorial
Conscience and the GMC.

Dr Adrian Treloar

The GMC is revising its guidance on Personal beliefs and conscience [1]. Then consultation period ended in June. It is good that the GMC recognise the importance of personal beliefs and the value of diversity, The CMA submitted responses to the consultation and were also on the GMC equality and diversity advisory group where the draft new guidance was considered. But despite that, the consultation gave rise to some serious concerns.

Firstly it seemed to me that the GMC is institutionally antireligious. Especially with regard to conscience and withdrawal of treatment, the problem is described as doctors who do not think treatment should be withdrawn, while doctors who seek withdrawal of care sooner than is perhaps indicated, go unnoticed.

Is the GMC institutionally antireligious?

The guidance appears to be biased insofar as it sees conscientious objection and belief as the problem to deal with rather than an opportunity. Doctors of faith can and do bring real value to healthcare.

And yet in section 26 of the draft guidance states that "26. If you have a conscientious objection to not providing life-prolonging treatment......." but does not think of or discuss that some doctors beliefs (perhaps atheistic doctors in particular), may give them a conscientious objection to continuing life preserving care sooner than is indicated. We note that discontinuing life preserving care is more often lethal than continuing it.

In our experience families are far more worried about withdrawal of care than they are about continuing it. The problem appears to us to be about stopping care too soon.

Paragraph  Clause 12 states “You should explore with your employer how you can practise in line with your beliefs while maintaining a good standard of care…” this can clearly be seen as a value-laden statement, implying that those who do not wish to cooperate with the proposed treatment may fall below the expected standard of care.  The converse may well be true. But as in other examples throughout this document, the GMC sees faith and personal beliefs as the problem and not  an opportunity.

For the GMC to see continuing life preserving care as an issue of faith, belief and conscience, while not seeing that removing life preserving care is also something that might be belief or conscience based is surely one sided and makes the guidance appear structurally anti-religious.

Curtailing Conscientious Objection

The draft guidance on Conscientious Objection is of great concern. International law and the Human Rights Act see religion as a protected characteristic. All people have beliefs and all have consciences. Doctors beliefs and consciences are informed by their faiths and those faiths include atheism. At Nuremburg, the defence that murderous soldiers were carrying out orders from above was not allowed. Such a defence appears to be being implemented by this guidance. It is wrong to command colleagues to do what they believe to be wrong.

Post war legislation has seen acting in good conscience as a fundamental duty of all people including doctors. The draft guidance ignores that and imposes the duty to either cooperate, or to give in and do things that practitioners consider unethical.

But paragraph 23 of the draft guidance states that “You must consider the availability of alternative care providers for the patient. If no reasonable alternative is available, you must discuss all options with the patient and provide treatment, whatever your personal beliefs – unless you are able to rely on a legal right to conscientiously object” That ”legal right” is said to apply to abortion and IVF only.

The guidance thus effectively deletes conscientious objection and meekly hopes that employers will support staff with a conscientious objection. In truth they will not support their staff. Rather they will tell objecting staff that there is no-one else to do the job and then quote GMC guidance and force doctors to do what they believe to be wrong.

The guidance appears to be incompatible with the UK Human Rights Act and international law. Statutory bodies such  as the GMC should not ride rough shod over sincerely held personal beliefs in the way that is proposed.

There is plenty more of concern in the draft guidance. There is a useful  summary at [2]